get_report_queries_job_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination defaults, or error behavior. It also doesn't state what happens if no route IDs are provided or how results are structured (though an output schema exists). The description is minimal and does not add behavioral context beyond the endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and is easily scanned. The parameter placement info is compact. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet list) but is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks important context: it doesn't explain why route IDs are needed, what specific filters are available, how pagination works, or any constraints (e.g., required path parameters). The tool is one of many report queries, and the description doesn't clarify its unique purpose beyond the generic 'job details'. The agent would have to rely on the schema structure, which is opaque due to generic 'anyOf' objects. The description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides groupings: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers, which is helpful. However, it does not name specific parameter keys or explain their types, constraints, or whether they are required. The phrase 'route IDs' is vague—does it mean the job's ID or route identifiers? The description adds some guidance but lacks semantic detail for an agent to construct valid calls confidently.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve job details') and the specific HTTP endpoint. It names the resource (job details) and the operation (GET), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_report_queries_job_details_view, though the 'view' suffix suggests a different representation; the description could be more specific about the unique scope, but it is functional.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives implicit usage context by stating it retrieves job details and indicates parameter placement (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't clarify if this tool is preferred over get_report_queries_job_details_view or cron_jobs. This is a clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.